Minutes

April 28, 2004 Master Plan Committee Meeting

Taken by Charles Hill

The superintendent introduced Sal Panini (Public Finance Associates, Inc.) to talk about bonds and debt service. Current debt service costs are about $3.9 million. The level of debt service drops down to $1.7 million in 2009-10.

• He described several hypothetical bonding scenarios that result in a debt service that holds steady at about $3.9 million over the course of the next decade.
• Given constraints of NYS law and current district bonding conditions, the district has the ability to bond for a maximum of 27 years. A $50 million bond over that period of time would carry an annual debt service of about $3.4 million.
• The presentation was not meant to say that the district should or would actually borrow or borrow at any of the amounts he mentioned.
• Mr. Powell noted that between now and whenever the district does a bond issue, many things can change: assessables (which are going up), equalization rate, interest rate, state aid, and state education department approvals.
• Getting state approval could well take 2+ years. Before that, the district could only borrow for "soft" costs (architect's fees, for example) - not for "hard" construction costs.
• Given the scenarios discussed at earlier meetings and the time and procedure the state takes to reviews projects, it is likely that the district would submit its building plans to SED sequentially, in discrete projects, rather than all together.
• Various comments and conjectures about bonding, SED, the nature of the economy now and in the future, etc.

Mr. Powell went over a memo from Dodge Chamberlin Luzine Weber Associates (the district architect) with cost estimates for infrastructure projects that are part of the district's 5-year plan.

• A representative from that firm summarized various parts of the memo. Priorities on individual items can change from year to year, depending on district goals. In many cases, specific items are included because they must be done by law if the district is undertaking certain specific construction projects.
• Joel Miller asked if the 5-year plan was designed to average the cost of all included projects over the 5-year period. The answer is that the district funds some projects in the regular budget and places others in propositions. The size of the propositions is not necessarily the same from year to year.

Wendy McNamara made a presentation about extended day kindergarten centers, referencing a presentation made a month ago on the same topic.

• She asked, how could the district fit such centers into the other scenarios?
• She presented several sheets meant to show that, by pulling kindergarten out of elementary schools and putting them in three kindergarten centers, the grades 1-5 classes in those schools could average close to a goal size of 20 students per class. One elementary school would have to be built.
• Also assumes one new middle school (not two). Handed out a sheet that shows a total of three junior highs (VW at about 1000 students, WJHS at about 800, and the new school about 1000-1050). Described the idea of doing high school feeder patterns by town lived in, not by junior high school attended; that this plan holds costs and tax increases down compared to building even more schools; stated that the plan is educationally sound by holding class size down and making consistent grade alignment.

Vision Committee

• Dr. Jaeger handed out and described an article from Educational Leadership ("A Forecast," by Marvin Cetron and Kimberley Cetron) about future trends in education (limits on funding, growth of size and diversity of student population, ...)
• Recommendations related to the ten projects that have been previously discussed (see list below), presented by John Houston, a committee member

o Limit kindergarten to 13-18

o Full day K for at risk students

o Extended day K for all other kindergarten students

o Set clear educational targets for K

o Theme/Interest Centers at middle schools where students with special interests (art, Project Lead the Way, immersion language study, etc) can have their classes use those interests to promote learning. After 3-4 years, bring this structure to the high schools.

o Learning labs are not critical for elementary schools (i.e., TV studio) but are at the middle and high schools

o Develop flexible space use opportunities (with movable partitions, for example). Include wireless technologies.

o Alternative school opportunities at the middle school level.

o Robust technology; systemic, not isolated. More integrated at classroom level. More use by staff. Wireless networks in all schools. Large display systems in classrooms. Laptops as textbook replacement. Video conferencing with other countries, other states, other cultures, other histories.

o Career development. Internships. Business collaborations.

o Community centers, in partnership with local municipalities (for example, building a pool that the school used during the day and the community at night).

o Team with colleges on adult education, AP courses

o The whole committee should remember to consider the nature of space use - particularly for some of the specialized space uses mentioned above.

Dr. Jaeger asked the subcommittees identify 2-3 members to join the superintendent and his staff to do some prep work for the next meeting of the committee as a whole. They should leave their names and dates/time of availability. He also asked for subcommittee feedback on a form handed out at the last meeting that will help prioritize the different projects that have been previously discussed:

1. Full or extended day kindergarten
2. Middle and secondary school "magnets"
3. Learning labs and media studios
4. Teacher-and-teacher, student-and-student, and teacher-and-student collaboration centers
5. Alternative middle school and high school
6. Robust technologies
7. Inclusion classes
8. Career development - service learning
9. Our schools as community centers
10. Educational centers to serve students K-12

After the subcommittees met, Mr. Abramson said his next task would be to summarize all scenarios; a draft of a master facilities plan that will describe the kinds of buildings and space use the district needs to meet the needs and visions discussed by this committee. The material turned in by the subcommittees will help him prepare this draft.

Next meeting: May 12, 7 PM, Myers Corners ES